P. v. Richerson



`





















Filed 10/5/10 P. v. Richerson CA1/4

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

>



California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.





IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



FIRST
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION
FOUR




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL JAMES RICHERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

A123366 (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR253347)

Defendant
Michael James Richerson appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding
him guilty of transportation of a control`ed
substance (Health & Saf. Code,[1]
§ 11379, subd. (a)) (count 1) and possession
of a device for injecting a controlled substance (§ 11364)
(count 2). He contends on appeal
that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and his request
for an evidentiary hearing, and that
the jury was incorrectly instructed. We
affirm.

>I.
BACKGROUND

A. Suppression Motion

Defendant
moved to suppress evidence, including methamphetamine, a spoon, syringes, and
statements he made during and after his detention, on the ground they were
obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable
search and seizure. (Pen. Code, §
1538.5.)

At
the hearing on the motion, Nathan Strickland, a police officer in the City of Fairfield,
testified that at approximately 9:45
on the evening of March 14, 2008,
he stopped a pickup truck that had no front license plate. Defendant was the driver. Strickland asked to see defendant's driver's
license, and defendant instead produced a parole card, which had his
photograph, his last name, and the initial of his first name.[2] Although defendant did not have a driver's
license with him at the time, he did in fact possess a valid license. Strickland called dispatch, and was told
defendant had a valid license; he was not told defendant was on probation or
parole or that he was subject to a warrant.
The standard procedure for the Fairfield Police Department was not to
allow people to continue to drive when they did not have a driver's license in
their possession.

There
was a passenger in the truck, and Strickland learned that he was on parole and
was the subject of an arrest warrant. He
waited a few minutes for a cover officer to arrive. When the cover officer arrived, approximately
10 minutes had passed since Strickland had initially stopped the truck. Strickland did not write a citation for
defendant. The cover officer arrived,
and Strickland arrested defendant's passenger and placed him in the back of the
patrol car. Strickland asked defendant
if he had anything illegal on him, and defendant said he did not. Strickland asked him to step out of the truck
and patted him down. He asked defendant
if he had anything that would poke or stick him, and defendant said he had a
syringe in a pocket. Strickland found
the syringe, arrested defendant, handcuffed him, and had him sit on the
curb. He then searched the vehicle. In the middle of the dashboard, he found a
spoon with white crystal material, which was found to be methamphetamine. Defendant also told Strickland he had
syringes in his shoe, and Strickland found two syringes there.

Strickland
testified that when he initially detained defendant, he intended to search him
and the truck to look for identification.
He also testified that he conducted the search of the truck based on the
facts that he had arrested the passenger and that he had found a syringe on defendant's
person.

The
trial judge stated that he thought the patsearch of defendant was â€